Conforming after impact

[Mehrunes]

Why has the pivot to be before the slide? Can you not slide C to the right, then pivot to face B?

[AlanCutner]

I've always assumed a slide had to be parallel to the facing of the BG, which means a pivot would be needed first. But I don't know why I made that assumption.

[gozerius]

The examples of play are very clear that you always pivot at the point of contact. Furthermore if your conform by the minimum necessary is blocked for any reason, you fight as if you had completed the conform. You do not seek out a differnt target to conform to.

[bertalucci]

IMHO they don't conform.

So B fights the melee with 1 element in contact and 1 element overlap - typically 4 dice.
A fights with 1 element in contact and 2 elements in overlap (1 each side) typically 6 dice.

Had the units conformed then the dice used would be calculated differently in regard to overlaps but would have been the same in total.

So I don't see what the issue is.

[Mehrunes]

There are only two diagrams in the rules regarding conforming, one of them showing a "SIMPLE conform".
So when it is possible, there is no reason to not pivot on the point of contact and then slide. But as we all know, things on the table are usually not as simple as in diagrams.
And the rules for conforming say "pivot and/or slide". I don't read "first pivot, then slide". But this may be implicit, I have to admit. Still not very clear.

Had the units conformed then the dice used would be calculated differently in regard to overlaps but would have been the same in total.

So I don't see what the issue is.

There is seldom an issue, because we have rules how to fight with bases which didn't conform. But then we could omit conforming as a whole anyway...

[rogerg]

Alan, putting 'ADVANCE' in there is unnecessary. A 'slide' implies any movement that does not involve rotation. In the example we are dealing with, the slide will probably be diagonally forward. Even if it is straight ahead, this does not matter. An advance with no wheeling would be a slide. All the rules state is that the BG can pivot and/or slide, which probably covers all two dimensional movement, that gets it into base to base contact with the contacted bases.

I have just re-read pages 70 and 71. The rules mention 'shift sideways' when other BG's are moved out of the way. There is nothing about a slide having to go sideways. If the author had intended this, one presumes they would have used the 'shift sideways' phrase rather than 'slide'.

This section of the rules is one I rarely read. Always a good thing to have a look again and find what it actually states and not what we have come to assume it states.

[grahambriggs]

The rules have it as "must...pivot and/or slide bases by the minimum necessary to conform to the enemy bases in contact" folowed by a bunch of detail bullets. The main rule suggests to me that each base can pivot or slide as necessary (so, pretty much move them however they need to to fit) as long as they do conform to enemy bases in contact and (bullets) shove friends sideways and end in normal formation.

So it seems to me that with just one base in contact per the diagram, you simply grab your troops and fit them in to base contact with the minimum move, which can be quite some distance if the enemy is blocking you to the left.

[kevinj]

I'm with Graham on this. Surely the key thing here is not to get obessed with the minutiae of how the bases get where they do. Conforming, as has been stated before, is principally for aesthetic reasons, and it does make counting dice easier. I would not want it to degenerate into a mechanism that players used to drag opponents into unpleasant situations as that is the kind of cheese that these rules set out to avoid.

[rbodleyscott]

Surely the key thing here is not to get obessed with the minutiae of how the bases get where they do.

Absolutely.

[ShrubMiK]

>I have just re-read pages 70 and 71. The rules mention 'shift sideways' when other BG's are moved out of the way. There is nothing about a slide having to go sideways. >If the author had intended this, one presumes they would have used the 'shift sideways' phrase rather than 'slide'.

I agree with you on this, although that particular rule threw up a tricky situation a couple of days ago that makes me question the existence of the word "sideways" in there at all.

A HF BG in 4 files by 2 ranks was hit in the flank and had to turn. Immediately behind it and touching the middle of its rear edge was a LF BG, in 1-wide column. The end files of the HF BG had room to turn but the ones did not. Shifting the LF BG sideways w.r.t. its own facing far enough to make room for the HF was obstructed by another HF BG, to the side of and slightly behind the first.

We ruled that the term "sideways" should not be taken to refer literally w.r.t. the facing of the LF, but rather to mean motion sideways w.r.t. the facing of the HF BG after it turned. Not sure we did that right according to the RAW, but it was hard to identify what was intended and it seemed more natural that (again) the idea was to make room without worrying too much about details rather than trapping the already disadvantaged HF in an even more unpleasant situation due to a quirk of geometry. Would be interested to know if we should have done it differently.

[rogerg]

Nice clarification Graham - "grab your troops and fit them in". Just about sums it up I think.

[gozerius]

Surely the key thing here is not to get obessed with the minutiae of how the bases get where they do.

Absolutely.

Rulebook examples notwithstanding?
The example on page 87 is very clear that when something obstructs a conform by the minimum necessary adjustment you do not conform in some other direction.

I'm not so much concerned how a base conforms as where a base conforms. Specifically who fights whom. The examples leave little doubt what this means.

If I content myself with reading the first general statement on conforming I get a very different impression than after reading the entire section and studying the examples of play on page 72, 87 and the impact-melee sequence on 91/93.

[rbodleyscott]

Surely the key thing here is not to get obessed with the minutiae of how the bases get where they do.

Absolutely.

Rulebook examples notwithstanding?
The example on page 87 is very clear that when something obstructs a conform by the minimum necessary adjustment you do not conform in some other direction.

Indeed, and that is the official interpretation of the rules as they currently stand. I said nothing about where they go, only about how they get where they go. I was referring to all the tosh about having to do the pivot first.

[AlanCutner]

Hmmmm......I thought I was getting a definitive answer. After Richards last mail I'm not so sure. I was never worried about whether a pivot had to be done first or not. So - does BG C first do a slide to the right (slide not parallel to its front) and then pivot. Or is it stuck in position because it can't pivot past BG A?

I'm now assuming the former now that a slide seems to include a move in any direction.

[ShrubMiK]

I believe you are right.

The moral of the tale seems to be: things should conform to the "nearest" conform position, or not at all; what constitutes the "nearest" conform position should be intuitively obvious to players without needing complex movement and sequence rules to be laid down; if it is possible for the unit to fit into the space required to achieve the "nearest" conform position, just do it and don't sweat the details of how it gets there.

[graym]

As I asked some time ago about big units swinging in on the conform, the response was unless you all matched up perfectly you couldn't do it.

Although a slide and conforming swing would give you more leeway.

However based on the presented diagram here you would have to fight offset.